It might rain or it might not

The director of the budget office, Douglas W. Elmendorf, is the first to acknowledge that there are many uncertainties around the projections. But he has also defended the agency’s numbers in public forums and numerous meetings with lawmakers and Congressional staff.

Mr. Elmendorf has stressed that the budget office used the “middle distribution of likely outcomes,” meaning that the health care law is just as likely to save the government more money as it is to cost more. (Emphasis added.)

Thanks for nothing:)

The article continues the argument saying that

Assessing the effects of making broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems — or of reversing scheduled changes — requires assumptions about a broad array of technical, behavioral and economic factors…

Well, obviously. No one can predict the future, that is why it is pointless to even debate about the long term outcomes of such complicated legislation. The fact is that the health care status quo in the U.S. is appalling for a large percentage of the population, hence change is needed. Let the new law stand for a few years and then debate its usefulness. But if one cannot make such a simple, straightforward argument with Republicans at this time, then all hope is lost… (Who claim, by the way, that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world. Do they know how the health care system of every other country in the world really works, I wonder? Have they ever seen a detailed U.S. hospital bill in their life?)